Trump Tower Wiretapped?

[+and-then]

4 hours ago, Claire. said:

Actually, there is indeed evidence beyond the usual crap, at least enough to merit not one investigation, but several.

Finally!  I'm so glad it's been submitted for our inspection.  We've been hearing and reading about it for months now.  Where is your link?

[Lilly]

5 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

I may not be up to date but those don't seem equivalent.  For the Russian allegations, it's pretty much already in evidence that Russia attempted to influence the election, although we don't know if Trump had anything to do with it.  There's no counterpart to that for Trump's statement that Obama wiretapped him, we don't even know if he was wiretapped at all.  In one case we know wrongdoing occurred and we're trying to determine who all was in on it; in the other we don't know if the claim is even true nor if how it was accomplished constitutes 'wrongdoing'.  That 'crap' seems significantly different to me.

Exactly, we don't know if Trump had anything to do with the Russians. We don't know if anyone wiretapped Trump Tower. We don't know if Obama or his Justice Department was involved.

Notice how many 'we don't knows' are involved here? This is why I refuse to conclude much of anything until those 'we don't knows' are answered.

[RavenHawk]

8 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

There's no counterpart to that for Trump's statement that Obama wiretapped him, we don't even know if he was wiretapped at all.  In one case we know wrongdoing occurred and we're trying to determine who all was in on it; in the other we don't know if the claim is even true nor if how it was accomplished constitutes 'wrongdoing'.  That 'crap' seems significantly different to me.

Phone calls between Trump and Enrique Pena Nieto and Trump and Malcom Turnbull were leaked (i.e. from being tapped).  Flynn was tapped talking to Sergey Kislyak (where was Flynn located when that happened?).  Who has the power to do this?  Admittedly, the onus is on Trump to shut this down.  In the old days you would just execute the old apparatus.  Obama may or may not be directly involved but he is the one that had 8 years to emplace an apparatus loyal to him and his bidding.

[BlackBearWolf]

So i have a theory of what is going on.

President Trump has business and political contacts in Russia who see alot of benefits in him being Potus. The Russians play a normal political game on the surface and have normal talks with Trump campaign regarding their concerns and wants for the next possible administration.  The Trump administration never ask for political espionage against Clinton  (except for Trumps "joke" asking Putin to hack)

Meanwhile the US Intelegence agency is monitoring all communications of Russian agents. The fact they have recordings of them talking to trump campaign like flynn is eveidemce of this.

So in summary I believe theTrump campaign were talking to Russians but on a benign level of political wants and needs between the two with no evidence of collusion to affect the outcome of the elections. (The russians acted on thier own to hack Hillary to get the guy they could work with better)

Meanwhile the government was only monitoring Russian political operatives not directly targeting Trump or his campaign. Thus them saying no wire taps ordered against the campaign remains true.

I believe if there was a smoking gun against Trump the FBI would have already charged him to prevent further damage to our countries sovereignty. Also it is a huge stretch to imagine Obama was asking the Intelligence community to conduct illegal surveillance of Trump. Because if it was illegally obtained it could not be used as evidence anyhow....

I feel this is what will come to light based upon available evidence.

 

[AnchorSteam]

29 minutes ago, Lilly said:

Exactly, we don't know if Trump had anything to do with the Russians. We don't know if anyone wiretapped Trump Tower. We don't know if Obama or his Justice Department was involved.

Notice how many 'we don't knows' are involved here? This is why I refuse to conclude much of anything until those 'we don't knows' are answered.

Which means it is time to tune-out for a while.... the Media is making too much money on selling us pure speculation.

I'll check back in sometime this weekend, time to go have fun with some other stuff. 

[Merc14]

46 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

I may not be up to date but those don't seem equivalent.  For the Russian allegations, it's pretty much already in evidence that Russia attempted to influence the election, although we don't know if Trump had anything to do with it.  There's no counterpart to that for Trump's statement that Obama wiretapped him, we don't even know if he was wiretapped at all.  In one case we know wrongdoing occurred and we're trying to determine who all was in on it; in the other we don't know if the claim is even true nor if how it was accomplished constitutes 'wrongdoing'.  That 'crap' seems significantly different to me.

Exactly what evidence are you talking about?  

17 hours ago, F3SS said:

Jesus man I'll tell you I don't know where my mind is some days. Too many places I guess. Holy crap lol. Yes I am the Father of Twins! Good grief 

Congrats F3SS and a father of just turning one twins is allowed to be a little scrambled! 

 

 

 

Edited March 8, 2017 by Merc14

[+Liquid Gardens]

19 minutes ago, Lilly said:

Exactly, we don't know if Trump had anything to do with the Russians. We don't know if anyone wiretapped Trump Tower. We don't know if Obama or his Justice Department was involved.

Notice how many 'we don't knows' are involved here? This is why I refuse to conclude much of anything until those 'we don't knows' are answered.

Agreed, except in one case we know that a 'crime' occurred and we're looking for all the culprits; in the other, we don't know if a 'crime' occurred.  In addition, in Trump's accusation, the 'we don't knows' can be instantaneously answered by Trump himself, assuming our double standards have not become so warped that it's kosher now that the POTUS accuses an ex-president of wire-tapping without evidence.  In one case, Trump's involvement if any with Russian election tampering, there is an investigation ongoing and I don't think anyone in the government has come right out and stated that 'Trump colluded with the Russians to corrupt the election. So sad!'; in the other, one would think that the necessary investigation has already been completed since Trump made the accusation.  Even if we analogize this to 'conspiracy' theories, it's like comparing the idea that Bush/Cheney were behind 9/11 to the idea that Bush/Cheney are actually reptilian aliens;  they both use faulty reasoning, but not faulty reasoning that is equivalent in volume or 'faultyness'.  I'm not saying that you disagree with any of that though.

I refuse to conclude anything either, except 1) if the Obama wiretapping claim is true Trump has terribly mishandled it and it's fairly inexplicable that he has yet to provide any evidence (which we would 'normally' expect to be provided right along with the accusation) and 2) it isn't acceptable if Trump's wiretapping claim just fades away and is forgotten without resolution or is not shown conclusively to be the case by the evidence.

Quote

Also, keep in mind that if Trump's campaign had inappropriate contact with Russians then he will likely be impeached and we'll get Pence. 

Sounds good to me; at this point we should all be pushing for "President Pence".

[RavenHawk]

6 minutes ago, BlackBearWolf said:

So i have a theory of what is going on.

I feel this is what will come to light based upon available evidence.

That is perhaps very close but you seemed shocked or disappointed that using common sense brought you to this conclusion??  I don’t think Putin really cares who POTUS is.  Their hacking was intel gathering for later on, not to influence the election.  If it was to influence the election, it wasn’t to help Trump as it was that I think Putin couldn’t stand Hilary (that’s why he can’t be all that bad ).  And I believe that the evidence exists that other players were involved in the hacking and these are the sources for the Podesta email leaks, etc.  But the thing remains that these leaks of Trump are still a felony and it was Obama’s Administration that was involved.

[+Liquid Gardens]

20 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

Exactly what evidence are you talking about?  

https://www.us-cert.gov/sites/default/files/publications/JAR_16-20296A_GRIZZLY STEPPE-2016-1229.pdf

Quote

This Joint Analysis Report (JAR) is the result of analytic efforts between the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). This document provides technical details regarding the tools and infrastructure used by the Russian civilian and military intelligence Services (RIS) to compromise and exploit networks and endpoints associated with the U.S. election, as well as a range of U.S. Government, political, and private sector entities. The U.S. Government is referring to this malicious cyber activity by RIS as GRIZZLY STEPPE.

Previous JARs have not attributed malicious cyber activity to specific countries or threat actors. However, public attribution of these activities to RIS is supported by technical indicators from the U.S. Intelligence Community, DHS, FBI, the private sector, and other entities.

 

[BlackBearWolf]

19 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

That is perhaps very close but you seemed shocked or disappointed that using common sense brought you to this conclusion??  I don’t think Putin really cares who POTUS is.  Their hacking was intel gathering for later on, not to influence the election.  If it was to influence the election, it wasn’t to help Trump as it was that I think Putin couldn’t stand Hilary (that’s why he can’t be all that bad ).  And I believe that the evidence exists that other players were involved in the hacking and these are the sources for the Podesta email leaks, etc.  But the thing remains that these leaks of Trump are still a felony and it was Obama’s Administration that was involved.

 

I think based on Trumps associations bussiness and cabinet, plus his on air adoration of Putin it is obviously clear Putin sees a more workable partner in Trump. Im not saying this is a bad thing. I would hope that all the major players in the world get along. Especially if the mutual goal is to destroy Islamic extremists.

The leaks are illegal but you are jumping to conclusions in placing blame on leaks to Obama. Lets not accuse without evidence as a new rule of thumb for this administration and all future.. that would be wise

[Merc14]

23 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

https://www.us-cert.gov/sites/default/files/publications/JAR_16-20296A_GRIZZLY STEPPE-2016-1229.pdf

 

I hadn't seen that document and did not know they had tied the RIS to wikileaks and Podesta's email so thanks !!   That said, why tie trump and his campaign, which aren't mentioned in the document, to the Russians?  Also, the attacks started in 2015 and the "political party" email was first hacked in that year and then again in the spring of 2016, but both events were before Trump was the nominee so why is his campaign suspected of being involved at all?   Also, does anyone seriously think Podesta's email changed the outcome of the election?   Maybe some democrats stayed home but how many republicans did the same because Trump?   I think one has to seriously strain credulity to blame Hillary's loss on the Russians.  

Edited March 8, 2017 by Merc14

[BlackBearWolf]

8 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

I hadn't seen that document and did not know they had tied the RIS to wikileaks and Podesta's email so thanks !!   That said, why tie trump and his campaign, which aren't mentioned in the document, to the Russians?  Also, the attacks started in 2015 and the "political party" email was first hacked in that year and then again in the spring of 2016, but both events were before Trump was the nominee so why is his campaign suspected of being involved at all?   Also, does anyone seriously think Podesta's email changed the outcome of the election?   Maybe some democrats stayed home but how many republicans did the same because Trump?   I think one has to seriously strain credulity to blame Hillary's loss on the Russians.  

I havent seen anyone on this thread claim that "because of the russians Trump won" nobody claims they "hacked voting machines". The arguement could be made that Putin wanted Trump to win, but the Podesta email leak was very moot in my opinion nothing very salacious. Our media was going after Trump in a much more aggressive manner and had bigger dirt on him and he still won.

The meat of the story is.

What were the conversations between Trump campaign and Russian ambassador about (considering multiple people have resigned, recused, and possibly lied about these meetings)and who ordered the wiretapping and why?

Edited March 8, 2017 by BlackBearWolf

[+Hammerclaw]

1 hour ago, Lilly said:

The witch said both this and what I quoted (check it out). She was pretty sure of herself to have said it twice. I'm pretty sure as well.

I remember the quote from Ray Bradbury's novel, Something Wicked This Way Comes, I read as a teenager. I was just echoing the sentiment. Other than the lines we quoted, I know more Hamlet than Macbeth.

[+Hammerclaw]

18 minutes ago, BlackBearWolf said:

I havent seen anyone on this thread claim that "because of the russians Trump won" nobody claims they "hacked voting machines". The arguement could be made that Putin wanted Trump to win, but the Podesta email leak was very moot in my opinion nothing very salacious. Our media was going after Trump in a much more aggressive manner and had bigger dirt on him and he still won.

The meat of the story is.

What were the conversations between Trump campaign and Russian ambassador about (considering multiple people have resigned, recused, and possibly lied about these meetings)and who ordered the wiretapping and why?

What we have in the offing are two fishing expeditions based on unsubstantiated allegations. Crimes have been postulated or inferred and both parties want investigations to either substantiate or debunk them. Both parties are jealously guarding their own particular house of cards, built, perhaps, more on a foundation of wishful thinking than reality.

Edited March 8, 2017 by Hammerclaw

[+and-then]

Meanwhile, the MSM are in utter confusion over what to do.  They claim multiple investigations against team Trump have been underway since at least the summer, yet they now have DNI Clapper and James Comey at FBI saying nobody's being wiretapped!  The press, especially the NYT, look like idiots.  I suspect that the tone of this witch hunt is about to calm down considerably as they realize how foolish they appear, and they think about where this all could ultimately lead, since Trump isn't quaking in fear and confusion.  They just can't understand why a Republican doesn't wet his pants and run simpering from the room when they make their pronouncements.  That's what ALWAYS happens, right?  Ooops....

[Claire.]

5 hours ago, Lilly said:

Evidence that President Obama's Justice Department considered significant (but we have yet to see ). Also, the first investigation found nothing tying the Trump campaign to Russian operatives/hackers. Keep in mind, telling a joke during a political campaign (about how Russia might be able to find some missing emails) really can't be considered as being evidence.

Also, keep in mind that if Trump's campaign had inappropriate contact with Russians then he will likely be impeached and we'll get Pence. If Pence was 'in on it' then we'll get Paul Ryan. The Republicans will still be the party in charge.

Here are 5 Ways Congress is investigating Russia-Trump Ties. The FBI, as I mentioned, has three separate investigations of its own.

You're correct in stating that some of the investigations started during Obama's time in office, but some have been expanded to include more recent developments, and others were started after Trump took office. As for seeing any of the evidence in advance, that's not likely and understandably so,

And stop with the 'we'll get Pence' talk, you're scaring me!

[+Hammerclaw]

2 minutes ago, Claire. said:

Here are 5 Ways Congress is investigating Russia-Trump Ties. The FBI, as I mentioned, has three separate investigations of its own.

You're correct in stating that some of the investigations started during Obama's time in office, but some have been expanded to include more recent developments, and others were started after Trump took office. As for seeing any of the evidence in advance, that's not likely and understandably so,

And stop with the 'we'll get Pence' talk, you're scaring me!

Oh, don't be so pensive.

[+Liquid Gardens]

23 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

I hadn't seen that document and did not know they had tied the RIS to wikileaks and Podesta's email so thanks !!   That said, why tie trump and his campaign, which aren't mentioned in the document, to the Russians?  Also, the attacks started in 2015 and the "political party" email was first hacked in that year and then again in the spring of 2016, but both events were before Trump was the nominee so why is his campaign suspected of being involved at all?   Also, does anyone seriously think Podesta's email changed the outcome of the election?   Maybe some democrats stayed home but how many republicans did the same because Trump?   I think one has to seriously strain credulity to blame Hillary's loss on the Russians.  

To be honest I was actually kinda surprised to find something that 'official'; I had mainly heard more vague things in news reports along the lines of, 'the intelligence community has linked election hacking to Russia'.  I think Trump is tied in because of things he said during the campaign encouraging the Russians to hack and the people in 'his circle' who did have contact with Russians despite claiming there were none.  My stomach for politics is limited so I don't know for sure, butI haven't seen anything in those actual contacts that doesn't look innocuous yet, and I can buy to an extent that someone like Sessions for example was answering a different question than he was technically actually asked.  But I think Trump and these relevant Repubs are as responsible for the suspicion and the need to at least investigate it as any hype whipped up by the left.

I certainly don't blame the Russians for Hillary's loss, but you add together their one-sided email reveals and things like Comey's ill-timed statements and it seems reasonable to think they had some impact, admittedly of unknown magnitude.  It was such a bizarre election though that I hope never gets repeated in any form that it's tough to pin the results on any one thing.  IMO I think that Hillary essentially lost the election when she made the 'deplorables' comment; she didn't do a good job of appealing to people who ended up voting for Trump nor really understanding them, nor even comprehending what the accurate state of the overall campaign was at that point.

[RavenHawk]

26 minutes ago, BlackBearWolf said:

I think based on Trumps associations bussiness and cabinet, plus his on air adoration of Putin it is obviously clear Putin sees a more workable partner in Trump. Im not saying this is a bad thing. I would hope that all the major players in the world get along. Especially if the mutual goal is to destroy Islamic extremists.

Exactly, but those that hate Trump tried to turn that into some kind of collusion, especially those that want to go to war with Russia.  What would they have colluded about anyway that they couldn’t do now?  It would be so anti-Globalist if Putin and Trump could work together.  Trump is only sending a signal of the possibility.  That is his job.

 

The leaks are illegal but you are jumping to conclusions in placing blame on leaks to Obama. Lets not accuse without evidence as a new rule of thumb for this administration and all future.. that would be wise

The leaks of Hilary and the DNC were done by multiple players.  Noone will really ever know the full extent.  But to tap US communications and then leak them to MSM contacts can only be done by one entity.  Ok, so I can see maybe Trump Towers being tapped by someone else, but Flynn was probably in his office in Trump Towers when he was tapped.  The tapping is confirmed by the Washington Post.  You are talking about the White House being vulnerable.  If that is the case, why reveal your presence by leaking meaningless phone calls that is designed only to throw mud at the President?  The finger only points to the top.   This is Spock’s Hammer Corollary.

[+Hammerclaw]

Wiretapping is an archaic term for surreptitious electronic surveillance. Since most phone and text messaging is done wirelessly, it's a relatively effortless task for intelligence agencies and leaves no telltale clues. No one had to sneak into the basement of Trump Towers and clip something to the wires.  

[RavenHawk]

13 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

Wiretapping is an archaic term for surreptitious electronic surveillance. Since most phone and text messaging is done wirelessly, it's a relatively effortless task for intelligence agencies and leaves no telltale clues. No one had to sneak into the basement of Trump Towers and clip something to the wires.  

That’s true to a degree.  You can pick up any number of random communications at any time.  You can see this by opening Wi-Fi Connections on your cell phone and start walking.  Each step brings different connections within range.  But to isolate a target, you need somebody in range that can actively monitor the device or catch it at a relay station with a sniffer.

[aztek]

1 hour ago, Hammerclaw said:

. No one had to sneak into the basement of Trump Towers and clip something to the wires.  

it depends, for copper landline, they would have to. it is analog signal, not just basement, but pretty much anywhere between a phone and a switch board

for pbx\voice over ip phones they would not need to.

Edited March 8, 2017 by aztek

[Lilly]

2 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

I remember the quote from Ray Bradbury's novel, Something Wicked This Way Comes, I read as a teenager. I was just echoing the sentiment. Other than the lines we quoted, I know more Hamlet than Macbeth.

I'm sort of OCD when it comes to Shakespeare. Our quotes were from Macbeth,  the scene where the 3 weird sisters (aka, witches) make their prophecy.

[+Hammerclaw]

17 minutes ago, Lilly said:

I'm sort of OCD when it comes to Shakespeare. Our quotes were from Macbeth,  the scene where the 3 weird sisters (aka, witches) make their prophecy.

That's some of the other I remember of Macbeth, the double, double toil and trouble part and that Akira Kurosawa did a Samurai movie based on Macbeth. Hamlet, on the other hand, I can quote whole passages of.  

[+Hammerclaw]

9 hours ago, Claire. said:

Actually, there is indeed evidence beyond the usual crap, at least enough to merit not one investigation, but several.

Then by all means, Claire share that evidence with us. Remember, real evidence has to be factual and not require a leap of faith.